The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially "Galileo wannabes". This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?

In reality, taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct[note 1]—that is, that the evidence supports your position. There is no necessary link between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct; if people perceive you to be wrong, there's a fair chance that you are wrong. However, the selective reporting of cases where people who were persecuted or ostracized for beliefs and ideas that later turned out to be valid has instilled a confidence in woo promoters and pseudoscientists that is difficult to shake. They forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo.

The fallacy as normally used relies, to a large extent, on misrepresenting the refusal of the scientific community to publish or engage with cranks as "censorship."

The gambit takes many forms, but in most cases someone using it to promote their ideas will highlight their perceived persecution. This supposed persecution is blown out of all proportion until an observer almost has no choice but to accept their ideas practically as a sympathy vote. Such tactics are used in the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which focused on several academics who supposedly lost jobs because they promoted intelligent design as a valid hypothesis. The film portrayed this as a violation of academic freedom, and played the persecution card extensively. Among those capable of indulging this gambit, mere opposition to their crankery alone may be sufficient to induce the belief that they are being persecuted, and hence, were right all along.

Cranks who use the gambit to claim persecution by "Big Science" often fail to see the irony in the comparison—it was the Catholic Church that censored Galileo, not the "scientific establishment".

An additional irony arises when we consider that if the maverick idea does manage to amass enough evidence to win over the majority, it will become the new consensus—at which point, by the fallacy's own reasoning, the idea must become wrong! After all, a new "Galileo" might assert that the Earth is indeed the Universe's stationary center (some people actually do assert this). The astronomers who would disagree and point and laugh, by the fallacy's line of reasoning, are just the Catholic Church all over again, and they won't have the last laugh (though taking this a step further, neither will the new "Galileo"; an alternating series of laughs will terminate only when the human race disappears). This kind of madness may be consistent with certain flavors of postmodernism, but then again, so is everything else.

“”[I]t's important to point out here that people with out-of-the-mainstream ideas who compare themselves to Edison and Galileo are never actually right...I can guarantee you Einstein did not go around telling people, "Look, I know this theory of general relativity sounds wacky, but that's what they said about Galileo!"

A common usage of this fallacy in politics today is for a politician or other figure to "play the victim," pointing at people's opposition to their political program as evidence of its "soundness."

In the West, this dodge was first employed on a large scale by early Christians, many of whom deliberately entered into confrontations with the Roman state and then obtained martyr status when they were executed, all according to plan.[3] This allowed the Church to ask such questions as, "Would the Disciples diefor a lie?"

"You get the most flak when you're over the target" is a pseudo-logical gambit, a favorite of Internet argument used as a substitute for rational rebuttal. Its intention, of course, is to prove that a hopelessly irrational woo proposition must be right because opponents are taking the trouble to criticize it. The popularity of this fallacious way of thinking is one major reason why real scientists are often reluctant to debate creationists.

Apparently, the contrapositive does not apply. Woo-proponents have never been known to write, "I must be wrong because I'm not being criticized", and will also use a lack of criticism as evidence for their position.

You can also get plenty of flak if you're over the wrong target.

Flak-based anti-aircraft positions are typically set up in a defensive pattern, either away from or around a target — the point being to take down potential bombers before they are ever in a position to actually deploy their bombs. So, when you're directly over the target (read: when the anti-aircraft defenses have failed to stop you) you would actually be getting less flak.

Bombers dodging flak (and war-fighting in general) is an arena where might makes right, so any analogy based on it is highly suspect in an arena where being correct is supposed to make right.

↑One might argue that, since Nicolaus Copernicus was not persecuted for his theory (he died in 1543), it's just Galileo. (The difference here is Copernicus did not actively spread the idea, while Galileo did. Also, Galileo tended to provoke those holding the opposing viewpoint, and this often leads to one's ideas not getting the reception they deserve.)